I am trying out org mode for emacs… so I can track common server errors and bugs… I just thought… what if I could have my list of common problems/solutions searched and linked into the repl… so everytime an error happens, org mode or something can suggest the common fix?

this would probably save me hours per week from just looking up my own trouble tickets in my trello… that’s where I organize all my tickets.

here is a jira plugin for emacs… maybe I can find something that searches my bug tickets automatically anytime there is a repl error or command line error?

https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/JiraMode

I am going to try the trello emacs minor mode… and let you know how this goes… I think this is the best idea I’ve had all month

https://possiblywrong.wordpress.com/2019/04/06/follow-up-i-found-two-identical-packs-of-skittles-among-468-packs-with-a-total-of-27740-skittles/

"... computation may depend on cognitive activity and not the other way around. The kind of cognition in question, we propose, is that which only arises within and is integrally bound up with specific sociocultural normative practices." - https://www.academia.edu/30701477/The_Cognitive_Basis_of_Computation_Putting_Computation_In_Its_Place

I guess the take-away claim is that the abstractions we use to program computers are somewhat imaginary... heady stuff

I saw Daniel Dennett and David Chalmers give a talk on "Possible Minds" at Pioneer Works not too long ago and they basically treated CBC as so obviously true that it didn't even need to be mentioned.

IIUC, this paper argues against CBC... or rather, switches the Cs - a Cognitive Basis of Computation

Yeah, it seems like a more developed version of what this blog post refers to as "Sapience." This post basically argues that the semantic content of cognition incorporates context to a degree that's completely uncaptured by our existing computational models of cognition. Any formal test of intelligence flattens the context that natural intelligence thrives in and thus makes it impossible to measure. https://fexpr.blogspot.com/2018/02/sapience-and-non-sapience.html?m=1 Or, as Dennett said in that talk "intelligence is knowing what to do when you don't know what to do." He said we're very far away from making machines that satisfy that definition of intelligence.

re: "Possible Minds" I noticed the latest episode on Sam Harris' podcast is titled such. https://samharris.org/podcasts/153-possible-minds/ interviews with George Dyson, Alison Gopnik, and Stuart Russell

I only made it through George Dyson's part so far but that one was pretty interesting

> Neither does the fact that people can compute ‘in their heads’, without engaging in overt manipulation of symbols, show that in such cases the brain computes. Even in these cases, it is the person that computes. The fact that computing relies on, and would not be possible without the occurrence of specific brain processes does not entail that those brain processes themselves are computations. :thinking_face: :thinking_face: I guess this makes sense by way of analogy to other ways of computing things. Using a pencil and paper to do long division definitely doesn't entail that the pencil and paper are dividing the numbers. Seems like a very anti-reductionist account of cognition is the consequence of this view.

Yeah, I haven't heard much news about how cognition is not based on spike trains flowing through neural circuits... Not calling that computation may be a semantic quibble.

But I'd agree that a Clojure interpreter, for instance, has two different descriptions - one is our sugary understanding of the concepts, the other is the actual silicon and electrons that are representing the analogous concepts

And you could call the sugary side of that coin "cognitive" if you accept all epistemic facts to be somewhat cognitive

I don't think it's just the sugary concepts though – the paper seems to argue that the output of programs and the purpose they're put to is also the determiner of cognitive content. A language interpreter has no meaning (cognitively) until it actually interprets symbols for some purpose.

What do you mean by "determiner of cognitive content"?

to say something "determines the cognitive content" of something else is just an unwieldy way of saying something gives meaning to something else, I think

I mean, if we accept that "meaning" is a cognitive affair. Or if we accept that all subjective, experiential affairs are "cognitive" in some way, then you get to the same conclusion.

yeah I guess that's something that I was implicitly assuming. I have no idea what a non-cognitive account of meaning would look like.

Do you think it could be argued that, in a way, all life in the universe have some layers of semantic, whereas the molecules underneath them are pure syntax, without semantics?

Or, could we argue that non-living, non-end-directed affairs (pure accidental affairs of things unaffected by living things) also can have a kind of semantics?

depending on how you're defining "semantics" here, people definitely argue for that view: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/

I myself don't agree with it

That inert matter (unaffected by organic material) lacks semantics?

The rules that govern molecules might be seen as a kind of semantic?

https://www.welcometothejungle.co/fr/articles/languages-software-go-elixir

Is something missing? I can’t tell…

I feel like a mainstream language added support for commas in numbers in source code, e.g. 1,000 = 1000 but I can't think of which it would be

I think that java has underscores

1_000_000

ocaml as well

and python, underscores it is!

that makes more sense.

commas and periods are a mess anyhow, the Dutch put a comma between the integer and fraction parts and use a period for thousands

Yeah, I know. I did wonder if using commas was controversial.

(when I thought it was the comma)

well an underscore hasn’t been assigned a role in natural language just yet, so its a relatively safe bet 😉

Anyone have a good book they can recommend for learning GPU/shader programming, specifically in the context of “general purpose” GPU programming?

in Java, a comma already has a syntactic meaning, so that was not an option

@cjsauer what is shader programming?